U.S. is Only 3 Years Behind China in Nuclear Reactors Courtesy of New Approval
December 23, 2011 7:09 PM
comment(s) - last by
An artist's depiction of a series of the new reactors in a future deployment.
Construction on new designs should begin within weeks; ultra-safe Gen. III+ reactors could be live by 2016
When it comes to alternative energy, wind and solar power are nice ideas and certainly
worthy of research
, but they remain much more expensive than nuclear power. Nuclear power, however, has suffered mightily under the misconceptions of a poorly informed public that mistakenly believes that modern reactors designs are as failure and toxic waste prone as legacy designs.
Protests and lawsuits
have blocked the construction and licensing of clean modern reactors, and then to add insult to injury critics tend to turn around and throw these cost overruns they created back at nuclear proponents, complaining that nuclear power is prone to "cost overruns".
I. NRC Approves First Gen. III+ Reactor Design
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
is doing its best to restore some sanity to the power market, making one of its biggest moves in recent years,
[PDF] a new reactor design and setting in a new faster, streamlined approval process.
The new design is the
by Westinghouse Electric Comp. LLC (a licensee of Westinghouse Licensing Corp., which in turn is loosely a subsidiary of CBS Corp. (
)). The AP1000 is a 1,154 MW "advanced" third generation reactor design (often dubbed Gen. III+).
A peek at the new modular design, which features a dramatically reduced footprint.
[Image Source: Westinghouse]
It originally won NRC approval back in 2006, but then in 2008 the NRC implemented a series of strict regulations [
] requiring that reactors be designed to sustain a direct strike from a commercial (i.e. large cargo or passenger) aircraft. The initial design, which included a concrete enclosed containment vessel, was deemed unsatisfactory as it could crack under the impact.
Westinghouse went back to the drawing board, adding a steel plate enclosure, which they argued would counteract the collision and keep the reactor safe.
II. Westinghouse Battled to Overcome Criticism
The refined design was resubmitted, but suffered an arduous approval process, thanks to attacks from several different sources. One criticism came from John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC. In 2010 he filed a claim, arguing that Westinghouse was wrong in their safety assessment of the plant's steel structure.
Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first "non-concurrence" dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval. In it Ma argues that some parts of the steel skin are so brittle that the "impact energy" from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall. A team of engineering experts hired by Westinghouse disagreed...
The approval process of the new design stalled on concerns of whether it could sustain a direct hit from a passenger/commercial jet hijacked by terrorists. [Image Source: Sukhoi]
The approval process was also slowed by a complaint from a coalition of environmental activists who
[PDF] that the approval should be delayed indefinitely to assess the:
...ongoing catastrophic accident in Fukushima, Japan, and decides what “lessons learned” must be incorporated into the AP1000 design and operational procedures to ensure that they do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety or unacceptable environmental risks.
These environmentalists essentially admit that they have poorly researched the topic, writing:
It is apparent that while little is known definitively about the cause and impacts of what occurred at Fukushima, many aspects of the accident have grave consequences for U.S. nuclear plants, including the AP1000 reactors.
This, of course, is patently false. Anyone who's been following the story and has marginal ability to comprehend and digest facts realizes that
the Fukushima disaster
Even a relatively poor legacy design can withstand the brunt of an earthquake unscathed.
The disaster was caused by the loss of power that prevented the safeguards from shutting down the reactor, leading to a buildup in pressure that cracked the containment vessel.
Lesson learned: any reactor in a region where there's a flood or tsunami risk should
not only waterproof their backup generators
, but should also contain backup modular cabling, in case the line is severed during a dual event (e.g. an earthquake+tsunami).
Furthermore, this complaint seems particularly silly given that the AP1000 is designed to be able to go through
a powerless shut down
, in the case of a power loss.
"Environmental" activists complained that the AP1000 could create the next generation Fukushima. Apparently they didn't get the memo about its capability to passsively shut down. [Daisuke Tomita/AP]
The NRC, however, dismissed these criticisms, saying comprehensive testing showed the reactor to be safe. Gregory B. Jaczko, chairman of the NRC, commented, "The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive material."
III. The Cheapest Form of Alternative Energy Available?
The approval puts the U.S. on the fast track to catching up with China, who is
four of the cheap, safe AP1000 reactors. The first of those reactors is slotted to go online in 2013. The government-owned Chinese National Nuclear Corp oversees the Chinese deployment.
China has a three year lead on the U.S. in constructing the affordable and safe new design. [Image Source: Westinghouse]
The Chinese deployment gives some insight into the promising economics of the AP1000. China paid $8B USD to Westinghouse and The Shaw Group (SHAW) to build the four reactors, indicating an average cost of around $2B USD per reactor. Given an average life of 60 years [
] and a power output of around 1000 MW, the plants could each generate around 525.95 billion kWh over their lifetime.
This works out to about $0.0038 USD/kWh. Even factoring in the typical cost of operation (around $0.01 USD/kWh) and fuel (around $0.0035 USD/kWh) [
], the generated power should cost about $0.02 USD/kWh, making it likely cheaper than coal. Even assuming the cost of the plant
due to overruns, that would still place it at $0.0265 USD/kWh -- still cheaper than coal power.
IV. The Issue of the Waste
Of course this simplistic analysis neglects the important cost of waste disposal. But even so, modular nuclear is expected to be substantially cheaper than other alternative energy options. For example, waste disposal would likely have to increase the cost of the plant by nearly a factor of ten for wind power in its very cheapest regions (around $0.0675 USD/kWh in regions where wind is plentiful) to hope to keep up. While waste costs are the subject of controversy and debate, it seems unlikely they will be that extravagant. Thus modular nuclear power is likely the cheapest viable form of alternative energy.
And that's not even considering the important tertiary benefits -- a nuclear power source has none of the availability issues surrounding the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
The low costs are owed to the reactor's modular design, which allows the reactor to be assembled piece-wise using mass-producible parts. It take 300 modules to build a reactor and the construction time is a relatively precise 36 months. Thus costs are far lower than the "custom-built" reactors of yore.
The modular design cuts down on both plant design time and costs.
[Image Source: Westinghouse]
It's important not to sugarcoat the topic of waste. There is waste. And it's still an important downside, financially in terms of requiring safe storage. That said, the new design is substantially "cleaner" than legacy reactors.
Annually it produces around 141 m
of low-level dry waste, which can be compacted [
; PDF] to about 30-40 m
. This isn't that drastic an improvement over legacy designs, but the real improvement comes in the reductions to low level liquid waste. A typical 1950s-1960s era CANDU reactor produces around 250 m
of liquid waste [
; PDF], where as the AP1000 only produces 21.6 m
. Both the wet and dry waste can be safe stored in tanks on site, with 95 percent of the radioactive material decaying within 100 years and almost complete decay within 500 years [
The high-level spent fuel waste is produced in a quantity of 1 and 1/3 spent fuel multi-purpose canister (MPC) per year, with 264 fuel rods per MPC. The entire high-level waste MPC output weighs 64.4 tons, of which 19.6 tons is spent fuel [
; PDF]. That puts the AP1000 at about the average cost [
] in terms of spent fuel.
But given the low cost of construction, utilities could conveniently
deploy rebreeding reactors or other waste-reduction alternatives
alongside a fleet of AP1000s to reduce the storage costs and space requirements, all while producing extra power.
V. AP1000 is Vastly Safer Than Past Designs
Aside from its passive shutdown capable design -- capable of powerless shutdown -- the AP1000 is also safer in other ways, as well.
50% fewer safety-related valves
35% fewer pumps
80% less safety related piping
85% less control cable
45% less seismic building volume
Less parts means less points of failure. The AP1000 accomplishes this reduction by relying more on forces such as gravity and natural heat convection.
The building's seismic footprint is also reduced by the compact, modular design. The NRC uses a measure "core damage frequency" (CDF) per year. You may recall in the wake of Fukushima, the stink raised by
an anti-nuclear activist editor
regarding supposed dangers of earthquake, given the NRC's requirement of only a 1x10
CDF annual frequency (which means that 1 event would happen per one hundred plants, every one hundred years, on average).
Well such critics can sleep soundly as the AP1000 features an impressively low 5x10-7 rate. That means even with 450 plants -- more than enough to fulfill the U.S.'s 446 GW power demands -- there'd only be one seismic damage event every
, on average.
VI. U.S. is Now Only Three Years Behind China
Perhaps the phenomenal safety is why the NRC decided to wave the traditional 30-day waiting period before making the approval official. That means applications for new construction will begin to be stamped for approval within a week possibly, with the first stages of construction set soon after.
Another benefit of the modular AP1000 is that the approved design qualifies for both a construction and an operating license. In the past, given the custom nature of designs, a power company would have to seek these two licenses separately, which cost time and money.
The new approach is designed to prevent cost overruns. In the 1970s and 1980s, the slow licensing process creating some cost overruns so huge that reactors were abandoned half finished.
The U.S.'s first planned AP1000s will be a pair housed at Southern Company's pre-existing plant Augusta, Ga., and another two housed at the Summer plant of South Carolina Electric and Gas in Fairfield County, S.C.
The new nuclear reactors will create high-paying controller jobs for qualified individuals -- Homer Simpsons need not apply. [Image Source: Westinghouse]
The new reactors could be online as early as 2016 -- just three years after China's first AP1000s.
No new reactor has been constructed in the U.S. since 1996.
Westinghouse cheered the move saying that the construction would create about 3,000 high paying jobs at each site, along with a smaller number of permanent jobs for new plant operators and engineers.
President Obama, shown here promoting nuclear energy in 2010 has gotten a bit shy about discussing his support for nuclear power, afraid it will hurt his reelection bid.
[Image Source: Inhabitat]
Congress has offered
$18.5B USD in loan guarantees
for new nuclear. And President Barack Obama has
offered his vocal support
for new nuclear construction, although he has kept quiet on the topic of late, afraid of offending his voting base, which contains a large radical anti-nuclear "environmentalist" base.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Bad cost analysis
12/24/2011 3:23:34 AM
Everyone seems to be negating how construction projects actually work here in the US..
First, planning.. Countless commissions and public advocates have the chance to make their complaints, meanwhile costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in proceedings costs.. Then, the actual split of the work from the major contract holder into several dozen subcontractors (or several hundred, when dealing with a project the size of a reactor). Months (or often years) then go by while all the miscellaneous hearings are made and permits are doled out. Then, actual construction begins, which is constantly overseen by government regulators -- everything down to the slump of poured concrete is tightly overseen and regulated. Not to mention, a Union laborer may be lucky enough to get prevailing wage of $35-50 an hour (not that common anymore), but -- their (sub)contractor is likely to be charging their parent (sub)contractor $50 an hour for a worker they pay $35 an hour, an occurrence that continues all the way to the top of the ladder, adding 15-30% to the costs at every rung you move upwards.
A project that may cost $2B in China, could easily cost well over $10B here.. not to mention any reactor will take several years in planning and hearings, and just as long to actually construct -- it'll be well over 3-5 years before any of these reactors start construction, not the ridiculous '2 weeks' quoted in this article.
But, as much as it seems to be wrapped up in red-tape -- it's entirely necessary.. First, of course, you have the 'free-market' principles that the majority of the professionals on this site tend to advocate, which is mostly responsible for incredible cost overruns (which you guys also claim is what makes this country so great). And then.. you have the actual government regulators, who ensure I can continue to make sure that I can drink my tap water without glowing in the dark.
Of course, those are just the facts.. I'm no naysayer -- the only way out of our current energy crisis is simply nuclear power. Green energy is great and all, but is still in it's infancy and highly inefficient (when considering cost of investment). Thankfully, as more and more of the cold-war 'relics' die off, public opinion has been swaying in a much more reasonable direction.
RE: Bad cost analysis
12/24/2011 1:08:16 PM
Due to the nature of Combined Operating Licenses it is very possible that construction will indeed begin in the stated two weeks. The opportunity for anyone to raise objections (lawsuits) to the plant design has passed. With an early site permit in hand, there should be very few obstacles to building these new plants in a timely manner.
The link below shows that construction has in fact already begun at one of Southern's sites. Southern went so far as to file for a waiver for the 30 day waiting period which we can tell was granted from Jason's article.
RE: Bad cost analysis
12/25/2011 10:58:21 PM
Govt backed loans are necessary for Nuclear Reactor construction because corrupt/irrational Govt/legal actions have pointlessly aborted or endlessly delayed dozens of Nuclear Reactor construction projects... wasting hundreds of $billions...
More cost overruns are from the hundreds of pointless, inane/stupid, counter-productive Govt regulations..
These mindless legacy regulations and regulators have prevented important improvements in US Reactor safety... locked us into Fed Govt approved 1950s designs... delayed improvements for decades.
Meanwhile, since liberals have blocked clean, safe, cheap US Nuclear energy (which has never killed a single American civilian), we were forced to coal plants whose particulate and other pollution kills over 30,000 Americans per year.
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
New Solar Cell Gives Its "110 Percent" in Efficiency
December 20, 2011, 6:23 PM
Use Meltdown-Proof Modular Nuclear Reactors, Says Top U.S. Scientist
December 14, 2011, 9:00 PM
UC Researchers Produce First Quantitative Estimate of Fukushima Radiation Leak
August 16, 2011, 11:47 AM
EDITORIAL: Don't Let Japan's Nuclear Mistakes Cripple the World's Energy Future
April 13, 2011, 8:45 AM
EDITORIAL: U.S. NRC Confirms MSNBC.com Reporter Mislead, Sensationalized Nuclear Story
March 18, 2011, 11:59 PM
Nail Polish May Soon be Able to Detect Date Rape Drugs
August 26, 2014, 7:57 AM
SpaceX Falcon 9-R Rocket Suffers Malfunction, Self-Destructs During Test Flight
August 23, 2014, 9:36 AM
Texas Chosen as Site for SpaceX's First Commercial Launchpad
August 5, 2014, 1:44 PM
South Carolina Prison Finds Crashed Drone Carrying Drugs, Phones
August 1, 2014, 2:49 PM
NASA's Mars 2020 Rover Gains Seven New Instruments for Exploration
August 1, 2014, 1:30 PM
NASA Opportunity Rover Breaks Record for Most Miles Traveled on Another Planet
July 29, 2014, 1:38 PM
Most Popular Articles
Quick Note: Buy an Xbox One Sept 7-13, Get a Free Game
September 4, 2014, 10:42 AM
Apple Announces Its Smartwatch: The $349 Apple Watch
September 9, 2014, 2:09 PM
Dell Announces "World's Thinnest" Tablet: The Venue 8 7000 Series
September 11, 2014, 8:51 AM
Windows 9's Latest Metro Start Menu Leaks, German Site Accidentally Outs Leaker
September 11, 2014, 8:36 PM
T-Mobile Launches Un-carrier 7.0, Beefs Up Wi-Fi Calling
September 11, 2014, 2:56 PM
Latest Blog Posts
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information